Third Readings

I move, That the Bail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, and the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This Government recognises the harm that drug and alcohol misuse can have on the community. Drug and alcohol use is a major driver of crime. Too many people are using substances at the time of their offending, and too many offenders on community-based sentences and orders suffer from addiction issues. To discourage this, courts may impose a condition of bail, sentence, or order to not use drugs and/or alcohol. The Parole Board may also specify that abstinence is a condition of release from prison or an extended supervision order. The enforcement of drug and alcohol conditions plays an important role in protecting public safety by ensuring that offenders and bailees can be held to account. However, under the current legislation there is no clear authority for police or Corrections to test people with abstinence conditions for the presence of drugs or alcohol.

This legislation addresses this gap by empowering Corrections and police to test people who are subject to drug and alcohol - abstinence conditions as part of their sentence or order. This will benefit the person being tested by deterring them from harmful substance abuse. It will also protect public safety by ensuring that agencies can hold people to account when they do breach their conditions.

During the Committee of the whole House, I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper that extended the testing regime to include returning offenders and provided for agencies to use an automated notification system to notify offenders of testing and clarified that an offender or defendant could be notified of their requirement to submit to testing via telephone or other electronic means. The Supplementary Order Paper also made minor technical changes to the legislation. I wish to thank members of the House for their cooperation in supporting this Supplementary Order Paper to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose and to ensure that the returning offenders regime is kept consistent with any changes made to the parole regime.

The legislation allows the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police to make rules related to testing methods and procedures. The rules must adhere to three broad principles that uphold the rights of people being tested. They must prescribe procedures that are no more intrusive than necessary, ensure testing only occurs as often as necessary, and afford as much privacy and dignity as practicable.

The testing regime is expected to target the highest-risk people who are subject to abstinence orders and who pose a serious risk to public safety if they consume alcohol and drugs. The targeted approach aligns with international best practice that suggests that frequent testing of the highest-risk group is the most efficient means of detecting and deterring the use of drugs and alcohol. The Government recognises that we must do more than just hold offenders to account, and we must address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and break the cycle of offending.

In accordance with the Government manifesto commitment, Corrections has successfully obtained $8.6 million over 3 years to develop and deliver a tiered approach to drug and alcohol aftercare support. Corrections has also secured $2.1 million from the proceeds of crime fund to develop and trial targeted methamphetamine screening and treatment in prisons. These programmes will enable us to support offenders in prison and in the community to leave substance abuse behind and lead crime-free lives. This adds to the existing range of treatment options available, which are very substantial and actually making a difference, but we can do better, which is why this legislation is here.

To sum up, and in conclusion, this Government has committed to holding people to account, but also to breaking the cycle of offending, which is actually much more difficult than just holding people to account. This legislation will make an important contribution to these goals, and will strengthen our ability to keep the public safe. And I would like to just put on the record, again, my thanks to the House for its support for this legislation. I commend the legislation to the House.

Labour supports this legislation, the composite parts of the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. As the Minister of Corrections said, for this third reading the legislation is divided into the Bail (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Parole (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Sentencing (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, and the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill. The Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (Drug and Alcohol Testing) Amendment Bill, as the Minister said, was put in the legislation by Supplementary Order Paper 236 to make sure that when those people who have been detained or convicted of crimes overseas return here, they are under the same testing regime as people who have been released on bail into the community or people who have been sentenced into the community or people who are on parole after having spent time in prison or those people who are the subject of public protection orders—in other words, people who have committed serious sexual or violent crimes.

As we know, drug and alcohol misuse is a driver of crime. The number of people who have reported using drugs and alcohol at the time of their arrest is approximately 48 percent. Two-thirds of offenders on home detention, intensive supervision, and supervision orders have identified alcohol or drug abuse or other addiction issues, so it makes sense that we put in place a regime that monitors those people who have got an abstinence condition and make sure that they actually follow it.

Most offenders are not intrinsically motivated. They do not think to themselves: “Oh, crikey! I better not drink alcohol. I better not participate in consuming drugs.” Many of them are extrinsically motivated, meaning that they need external pressure put on them to make sure that they abstain from drugs and alcohol. That is why these conditions are put in place—to actually help them and to help the community to be safer. To me, it is a win-win situation. The offenders are helped, albeit extrinsically, to abstain from drugs and alcohol. Their families would probably be really grateful if they were kept off drugs and alcohol, so that they do not offend and so that they do not go back to prison, but, certainly, communities will be safer as well. So it is a win-win situation for the offender, for their families, and for the community. Some people may see it as an imposition on the offenders, but the reality is that we need to look after our communities and make sure that they are kept safe.

Every year there are thousands of offenders on community sentences and orders, and bailees who have an abstinence condition imposed. This legislation allows, as the Minister has said, the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to have their people test these offenders. If offenders know that they have got a high chance of being checked for drugs and alcohol, then the chances are that they will be more inclined to not take the risk of consuming both drugs and alcohol. On the flip side, if they believe that they have a high chance of being caught with drugs and alcohol in their system and that there will be consequences because of this, then the chances are that they will be less inclined to consume drugs or alcohol.

We can draw a comparison with our poor burglary resolution rates. Burglars know that they have a 90 percent chance of getting away scot-free if they commit burglaries, so there is a high probability that because of that they will go on to commit further burglaries.

We also need to have a look at what is going on in prisons. Yesterday I met with a couple of former prisoners—female prisoners who had, obviously, spent time in a female prison, in South Auckland. They made a startling claim that at any given time there were no more than a dozen or so prisoners who were able to attend drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes. They also said—and I have heard this from other prisoners as well—that the reason prisoners attend the drug and alcohol programmes is that prisoners from other units will come together in one room and it is easier, basically, for them to exchange drugs and alcohol. They said that somebody who attends the drug and alcohol programme has to be a particularly motivated and determined person to actually break the habit, because of the fact that they really attend the drug and alcohol courses to actually exchange drugs. They also said that there was another place where they go to exchange drugs, and, funnily enough, that is to Church in prison. They are not just talking about participating in the communion wine; they said that when prisoners come together from other units to Church, it is just another—it broadens the market, I guess, for the exchange of drugs and alcohol.

So it is good to hear that the Minister said that, over 3 years, the Government is putting $8.6 million into addressing this and $2.1 million into meth screening. There is a real need in prisons for greater support to help prisoners kick the habit. As those prisoners told me, they have to be particularly motivated and particularly determined to kick the habit because, basically, the conditions in prisons actually encourage drug and alcohol consumption. The other thing they said is that they attend the courses and then they may have to wait 1 or 2 years before they actually get released into the community. They are told: “Attend this 3- or 6-month course and then sit around for 2 years, but make sure you remember what you were told 2 or 3 years ago on that drug and alcohol course and then apply it once you get out.”

As a former educator, I know that if people are going to learn things, they actually need to be able to apply their knowledge and what they have learnt almost immediately. The courses probably need to be more intensive, more regular, and include more prisoners. Corrections has more work to do in order to create the conditions where prisoners address their drug and alcohol issues both inside and outside the community, and this is just a small—actually, it is not even a small step. It is just another step to help monitor prisoners’ consumption of drugs and alcohol.

There was a concern around the equipment that is attached to the people and that it might give false positive readings in drug and alcohol testing. I am sure—well, I would like to think—that Corrections and Police have got the equipment to such a state that it will not give false positives, because one of the problems with false positives is that it is really hard for the prisoner to actually prove that they are innocent. I gave the example in the Committee stage of how police have used Listerine with children in schools to show that alcohol breath testing can pick up Listerine or can pick up the alcohol in cologne. It is very, very hard for an offender who is actually innocent, who has a false positive, to prove and be heard and believed that they did not actually consume drugs and alcohol if the testing equipment provides a false positive. The chances are that they will end up back in prison. They will be bitter, angry, and twisted if they think they have been treated unfairly. So it is important that offenders and the public have confidence in the use of alcohol-monitoring technology and its effectiveness.

We have got to make sure that testing for alcohol or drugs does not encroach on the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Minister did say that the testing should be no more intrusive than is necessary, that it should be no more often than is necessary, and that it respects privacy. I think we have got to balance the rights of offenders with the rights of the community to be safe. Kia ora.

Debate interrupted.